New VIDEO Animation: Pill = Potential Embryonic Abortion

  • Thread starter Thread starter PLAL
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
P

PLAL

Guest
New VIDEO Animation: Pill = Potential Embryonic Abortion

We got word a few days ago about a new video — posted on YouTube earlier this week — with animation explaining how the birth control Pill has the potential to cause embryonic abortions.
As of yesterday, it had been viewed 1,000-some views. As of now, the number of views is over 4,000.

The narrator of this slickly produced video, Nell Andrzejewski, is a longtime friend of ours, and has frequently taken part in our Face the Truth Tours.

Check it out:

generationsforlife.org/2007/0525/new-video-on-the-pill/#comments

More…

all.org/article.php?id=10217&PHPSESSID=d6c4aac5ba558445f33333c239f77391

There are between 9-14 million Chemical (non-surgical) Abortions per year…

prolifewisconsin.org/infolibraryshow.asp?lID=28

How Are the Number of Chemical Abortions Per Year Estimated?..

theuniversityconcourse.com/IV,1,10-8-1998/Ziegler.htm
 
Amazing the fine details
  1. No data
  2. The authors say the pill is abortifacient. Then they say no direct evidence of their statements exists. Latter they say they have “impeccable scientific data1”. Which of the statements is correct?
  3. Lining can not receive fertilized eggs? So every woman who claims to have had a baby while on the pill is mistaken? Wait, Wait, Wait no the same article claims woman do conceive and implant on the pill, which means the writer was incorrect when he wrote the lining was not capable, right? Or was the author incorrect the second time?
  4. The pharmacist says he has data and then goes on to say - well if we assume-- we can generate---- what? If you generate it, then it is a model based on assumptions. However can you find the actual data he spoke of?
  5. theuniversityconcourse.com/IV,1,10-8-1998/Ziegler.htm
 
Texas Roofer,

Even Planned Parenthood believes Hormonal Birth Control causes Chemical Abortions & Planned Parenthood gets over a billion dollars of the U.S. taxpayers money to kill our children both chemically through selling homonal contraception and surgically by providing abortions.

all.org/article.php?id=10217&PHPSESSID=d6c4aac5ba558445f33 333c239f77391

Since the other team (Planned Parenthood) agrees Hormonal Birth Control causes Chemical Abortions, then I all I can assume is that you are severly confused or you are trying to put a spin on the issue because you are in denial.

All I can assume is you may be using homonal birth control and are trying to deny it’s consequences. [Mod edit: deleted comment.]
 
Thanks for thanking the time to make an analysis of me . Can I assume this means no data, and no answers?

Let me help you with some Catholic concepts directly related you may have overlooked one place to start is Exodus 20:16 You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.

Second there is the Catechism (2482-2484)A lie is a falsehood spoken with the intent to deceive. Jesus denounces lying as the work of the devil. “He is a liar and the father of lies” (Jn 8:44). Lying (the attempt to lead into error someone who has the right to know the truth) is the most direct offense against the truth. Lies injure man’s relation to the truth, to his neighbor, and to the Lord. The gravity of a lie depends upon the truth which it deforms, the circumstances, the intentions, and the harm suffered by the victims

I would like to suggest to you joining NFP does not dismiss the Catholics responsibility. When a Catholic is making statements as the pill prevents implantation of fertilized eggs knowing this is directly contradicted by babies born to mothers who were using the pill before, during, and after conception that Catholic is probably in a state of mortal sin and should seek repentance. The same is true for any Catholic teaching the pill is a known abortifacient or that data to that affect exists. Until some data is shown concern that particular pill, the statement is improper at best.

[Mod edit: deleted comment.]
 
People are busy changing the definition of “pregnant”. If you aren’t pregnant you can’t have an abortion.

So here’s what I keep seeing:

Pro-life: You are pregnant at conception and therefore the pill is abortifacient.

Pro-Choice: Pregnancy begins at implantation so the pill is not and abortifacient.

so then we get:

Pro-lifer: is too!
Pro-Choicer: is not!
Pro-lifer: is too!
Pro-Choicer: is not!
Pro-lifer: is too!
Pro-Choicer: is not!
Pro-lifer: is too!
Pro-Choicer: is not!
Pro-lifer: is too!
Pro-Choicer: is not!
and so on. :rolleyes:
 
DATA: Please go get the PDR or pull out the insert of ANY hormonal birth control. The manufacturer themselves state that it also works this way. They just don’t advertise this. OB’s don’t tell you this. Why? Because, in 1965 ACOG redefined ‘pregnancy’ as only occuring once the egg IMPLANTS. Therefore, expelling a fertilized egg is not ‘abortive’ because to them there is no pregnancy at this point. A fertilized egg in the tubes, uterine, etc., is not a pregnancy until it implants. In the inserts and PDR they tell you that this is the third way it works(1st is preventing ovulation, 2nd is preventing it from reaching egg by thickening mucous, and 3rd is preventing implantation via changes in uterine wall). This is ALL info from the birth control makers themselves! Really, go read the inserts for ANY hormonal BC, and come back here and tell us how they tell you it works. The info is there if you look for it.
 
AP4Him said:
here ya go:
“reduce the likeliehood of implantation”

Nuva Ring(Page 1 under 'clinical pharmacology) nuvaring.com/Authfiles/Images/309_76063.pdf

Ortho tri cylen LO (Same blurb, under clinical pharmacology’)
thepill.com/active/janus/en_US/assets/common/company/pi/Tri-Cyclen_Lo_PI.pdf#zoom=100

The data on the estrogen pills, lowering of levels, and adding other hormones, such as progesterone is very easily found and substantiated as well!
Click to expand...
Yes, now would you please place the data supporting your claim - less implantation occur- on the table prior to leaving -thank you
 
Texas_Roofer said:
Please place the supporting data on the table prior to leaving -thank you
Click to expand...
Which data are you looking for?

I was summing up the argument for you. I don’t believe I made a case for either point.

You want supporting data that pro-lifers say that stopping implantation is abortion? It’s all over this thread!

You want proof that pro-choicers say that Pregnancy starts at implantation?

Or are you asking for proof that contraceptives reduce implantation?

What sort of proof do you want? Some links have been given but you ask for proof of the proof? Perhaps we don’t understand what kind of proof you want or proof of what exactly.
 
ruf.rice.edu/~wellness/ec.html#early (Rice University)
Medical science considers that a pregnancy has begun once implantation of a fertilized egg in the lining of a woman’s uterus is complete. The process of implantation begins about five days after fertilization and is completed about one week later, around the time of the expected menses. ECPs are ineffective once implantation has begun.
Click to expand...
Princeton University:
emergency contraception prevents pregnancy and thereby reduces the need for induced abortion. Medical science defines the beginning of pregnancy as the implantation of a fertilized egg in the lining of a woman’s uterus. Implantation begins five to seven days after fertilization (and is completed several days later). Emergency contraceptives work before implantation and not after a woman is already pregnant. When a woman is already pregnant, emergency contraception does not work. Emergency contraception is also harmless to the fetus and the mother.
Click to expand...
BIOL 301 said:
·
csupomona.edu/~nebuckley/Courses/Bio311/Bio311-lectures%20for%20web/Bio311-lecture%204.htm Any IUDs irritate the uterine lining and reduce the chances of implantation, IUD also alter sensitive timing of ovum as it passes through fallopian tubes.
Click to expand...

http://www.othmerinstitute.org/facts/factsheet5.html said:
How EC Works
EC pills may work in a variety of ways. They may inhibit or delay ovulation, alter the tubal transport of sperm or the egg (thereby preventing fertilization), or alter the lining of the uterus, which may inhibit the implantation of a fertilized egg.2 If a woman is already pregnant when she takes EC pills, they will not harm the fetus. An IUD can prevent sperm from fertilizing an egg and can inhibit implantation of a fertilized egg as well. Emergency contraception is contraception, not abortion.3 It prevents pregnancy before it occurs.
Click to expand...
40.png
Harvard:
huhs.harvard.edu/HealthInformation/EmergencyContraception.htmEmergency hormonal contraception works the same way birth control pills work to prevent pregnancy, it alters the normal hormonal cycle by delaying or inhibiting ovulation, preventing fertilization, and inhibits implantation by altering the endometrium. Emergency contraception is not an abortion pill. It prevents pregnancy and reduces the need for abortion. EC cannot terminate an established pregnancy. If there is a chance you are already pregnant EC should not be used until pregnancy is ruled out. HUHS recommends a urine pregnancy test be done prior to the use of EC, but it is not required. Evidence suggests that neither the pregnant woman nor the fetus will be harmed if EC is inadvertently used during early pregnancy.
Click to expand...
Now I purposely tried to find sources that are not pro-life to avoid bias. I can’t find ANY source that says that contraceptives do not prevent implantation. Several outright deny a woman is pregnant after fertilization and before implantation, but they don’t even attempt to say it doesn’t prevent implantation.

Again, the argument is not over weather contraceptives prevent fertilized eggs from implanting… it’s about when life occurs.
 
the argument is not over weather contraceptives prevent fertilized eggs from implanting… it’s about when life occurs.
Click to expand...
There is no proof that oral contraceptives prevent implantation. The changes in the endometrium are not direct evidence. There is no direct evidence, and there has never been a study designed to research if this mechanism of action prevents implantation in ovulatory pill cylces. The statement from the prescribing information that the changes in the endometrium reduce the likelihood of implantation suggests this may prevent implantation, but this is not scientfic proof. What happens to the endometrium in ovulatory pill cyles?

Here are three articles that present opposing views on this:
Hormone Contraceptives Controversies and Clarifications
Birth Control Pill: Abortifacient and Contraceptive
polycarp.org/how_does_the_pill_work.htm

IMO, it is misleading to state as a matter of fact that the pill is an abortifacient. It may be an abortifacient based on the evidence, but there are no definitive studies. IMO, there is strong evidence to suggest an abortifacient effect. I need direct evidence the pill never prevents implantation.

BTW, it is currently believed that the IUD creates an intrauterine environment that is spermicidal.
 
Texas_Roofer said:
  1. Lining can not receive fertilized eggs? So every woman who claims to have had a baby while on the pill is mistaken? Wait, Wait, Wait no the same article claims woman do conceive and implant on the pill, which means the writer was incorrect when he wrote the lining was not capable, right? Or was the author incorrect the second time?
Click to expand...
“What is the conception rate for women on hormone contraception?” They answer correctly that it is impossible to say. However, earlier in their paper they noted, quite accurately, that the medical literature documents an incidence of 3-5 pregnancies per 100 women per year for pill users. Dr. Don Gambrell, Jr., a renowned gynecological endocrinologist addressed this issue during the educational segment of this same meeting. He noted a 14% incidence of ovulation in women taking the 50 microgram BCP. This rate varies from pill to pill and patient to patient. Simple logic informs one that every fertilization occurring in women on the pill doesn’t result in a term “pill pregnancy” or a surgically induced abortion. But this is the precise thesis of those stating that the BCP is not abortifacient. Simple logic and deductive reasoning would suggest that many more than the clinically diagnosed pregnancies that occur are aborted because of the acyclic, unfavorable-for-implantation endometrium. If IVF practitioners relied on an endometrium that is “less vascular, less glandular, thinner” than that ideal for implantation, their success rate would approach zero today rather than the tens of thousands of babies born of that technology. More on this subject when viewing the mathematics of the issue…
Click to expand...
aaplog.org/collition.htm
Click to expand...
 
Syele said:
Which data are you looking for?

I was summing up the argument for you. I don’t believe I made a case for either point.

You want supporting data that pro-lifers say that stopping implantation is abortion? It’s all over this thread!

You want proof that pro-choicers say that Pregnancy starts at implantation?

Or are you asking for proof that contraceptives reduce implantation?

What sort of proof do you want? Some links have been given but you ask for proof of the proof? Perhaps we don’t understand what kind of proof you want or proof of what exactly.
Click to expand...
I think the post was reduced to a specific quote. Personally, I do not care for the term “Pro Choice” I do not know of a single case in which the one killed chose the option. If you whish to quote “Pro-Life” people you might consider documenting that. I would ask you to consider the entirety of actions, or specifically the Church’s comments on doing evil to achieve good. Some how some Catholics feel falsifying information concerning some issues particularly the abortifacient effects of the pill justify dropping Catholic principles. Some go so far as to increase the misrepresentation by attempting to defer these questions by switching from the actual questions to other items in the umbrella of birth control. Remember the word contraception is only used correctly when conception is prevented, no action occurring after conception can be contraception.

Let me give you a silly example
The sky is black actually the sky has no color however when the light is not present, humans can not see. When light is not present we define this as black. So the lack of light is the actual issue not the sky which has no color
So what color have I lead you to believe the sky is?
 
Texas_Roofer said:
I think the post was reduced to a specific quote. Personally, I do not care for the term “Pro Choice” I do not know of a single case in which the one killed chose the option. If you whish to quote “Pro-Life” people you might consider documenting that. I would ask you to consider the entirety of actions, or specifically the Church’s comments on doing evil to achieve good. Some how some Catholics feel falsifying information concerning some issues particularly the abortifacient effects of the pill justify dropping Catholic principles. Some go so far as to increase the misrepresentation by attempting to defer these questions by switching from the actual questions to other items in the umbrella of birth control. Remember the word contraception is only used correctly when conception is prevented, no action occurring after conception can be contraception.

Let me give you a silly example
The sky is black actually the sky has no color however when the light is not present, humans can not see. When light is not present we define this as black. So the lack of light is the actual issue not the sky which has no color
So what color have I lead you to believe the sky is?
Click to expand...
I used th eterm “pro-choice” because that is what they call themselves. If I wanted to be difficult I might have called them “Pro-Murderers” but I was trying to be kind.

Now it’s not falsifying information to disagree on when life begins. I’m not Catholic and most every Christian group I know maintains life begins at fertilization whereas the other side maintains it begins at implantation. I don’t see how I’m being dishonest?

Your analogy about the sky is inaccurate because you use something that people have no real argument about.

There is not argument as to what the pill does do. It’s about when life began. It’s not dishonesty on the part of the Christian community when they are clearly saying “Life begins at conception!”
 
Concerning fix’s 12:09 post

Much better, much, much, better. There are two issues missing (1)loss of fertilized eggs is common. The actual rate is unknown and thus one of the huge problems to overcome. Since we do not know the retention rate of fertilized eggs we have no way to know (2) if that rate is decreased by the pill. Most of our knowledge comes from fertility clinic research.

There is nothing wrong with claiming a progression of logic leads us to believe the pill will eventually be determined to have an abortifacient affect. That is not the same as statements I am currently seeing
 
Let’s look at what Dr. Chris Kahlenborn wrote in “How Do the Pill & Other Contraceptives Work?”

[sign]Does OCP use cause changes in the lining of the uterus that could be detrimental to the newly conceived child’s ability to implant himself or herself?
It would appear so. Because we know that use of the oral contraceptive pill (OCP) allows ovulation and conception to occur at times, if OCP use causes unfavorable changes in the endometrium it would make it difficult for the unborn child to implant, and would support the conclusion that it acts as an abortifacient[/sign]

lifeissues.net/writers/kah/kah_03howpillworks1.html#b2

I have no problem with using the adjective “potential” abortifacient. It benefits no one to lay a heavy burden of guilt on anyone who has been using any method of contraception. (By the way, why the exclusive focus of some in this forum on only one?) Nevertheless, many good people are horrified once they realize they may have lost an untold number of children in this manner. Such testimonies can be read at the Priests for Life.org website.

Given their genuine pain and grief and bearing in mind how many of us have been or are still in the same boat we do have a responsibility to be very careful in our speech. In time the gentleness the Holy Spirit leads all to truth. Eventually, even the most smug and self-sufficient person will come to see how deeply flawed, sinful and weak he is. So fine, “potential abortifacient” still delivers the message.
 
Texas Roofer quibbled:
[sign] Lining can not receive fertilized eggs? So every woman who claims to have had a baby while on the pill is mistaken? Wait, Wait, Wait no the same article claims woman do conceive and implant on the pill, which means the writer was incorrect when he wrote the lining was not capable, right?[/sign]

It is difficult for the embryo to attach itself to the endometrium not impossible. These children are proof that oral contraceptives do not act as many think they do in preventing ovulation. If a woman can ovulate she can conceive. Unfortunately, regardless of whether or not the child successfully implants - in less than an optimal environment- he/she is still at a high risk of being aborted. So the question becomes moot. Once the parents have a contraceptive mindset, they are only one step away from surgical abortion as the final weapon in the birth control arsenal. Contrary to what many believe, it’s not the teenagers who are having most of the abortions it is women who have already have had one or two children.

Failed contraception = more abortions.
 
PLAL correctly stated:
[sign]Even Planned Parenthood believes Hormonal Birth Control causes Chemical Abortions [/sign]

The following is more detailed than the link PLAL provided to American Life League.
Do groups who favor abortion admit that OCPs and the IUD work by causing early abortions?
In his arguments before the Supreme Court in 1989, in a case that received worldwide publicity – the case of Webster versus Reproductive Health Services – Mr. Frank Susman, arguing for the pro-abortion side spoke to Justice Anthony Scalia and stated: " The most common forms of what we generally in common parlance call contraception today, IUD’s, and low-dose birth control pills, which are the safest type of birth control pills available,** act as abortifacients. They are correctly labeled as both."** (The New York Times, 1989)
Click to expand...
lifeissues.net/writers/kah/kah_03howpillworks2.html#b34
 
Even Planned Parenthood believes Hormonal Birth Control causes Chemical Abortions
Click to expand...
Planned Parenthood states this may occur. From the PP website:
In theory, this could prevent pregnancy by interfering with implantation of a fertilized egg. But there is no scientific evidence that this occurs.
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top